Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1998 14:44:10 -0400 From: Chris Ambidge Subject: *Integrator* files for 1992 INTEGRATOR, the newsletter of Integrity/Toronto volume 92-3, issue date 1992 04 02 copyright 1992 Integrity/Toronto. The hard-copy version of this newsletter carries the ISSN 0843-574X Integrity/Toronto Box 873 Stn F Toronto ON Canada M4Y 2N9 == contents == [92-3-1] FINLAY FIRES FERRY (Again) -- Bishop's Court finds Jim Ferry guilty of two charges / by Chris Ambidge [92-3-2] BISHOP FINLAY'S DECISION / the text of Bishop Finlay's announcement. It was read as a pastoral letter on Sunday March 22, at all services in all congregations of the diocese. [92-3-3] "IN SPITE OF IT ALL, I AM A PERSON OF HOPE" / The press conference statement of the Reverend James Ferry [92-3-4] THE PRIMATE RESPONDS TO ISSUES RAISED BY THE TRIAL OF JIM FERRY by the Most Rev Michael Peers, Primate of the Anglican Church of Canada [92-3 5] DEAR BISHOP FINLAY... a personal open letter from Integrity/Toronto Co-convener NORM RICKABY [92-3-6] COMMENTARY ON THE JUDGEMENT AND BISHOP FINLAY'S SENTENCE by Valerie Edwards [92-3-7] DOES THIS SOUND FAMILIAR? [92-3-8] BISHOPS AND BOOK-BANNING [92-3-9] LETTER TO THE EDITOR / by Jeffrey Kirk ======== [92-3-1] FINLAY FIRES FERRY (Again) Bishop's Court finds Jim Ferry guilty of two charges by Chris Ambidge On July 14 1992, Bishop Terry Finlay wrote a letter to the congregation of St Philip's, Unionville, outing the Rev Jim Ferry as a gay man, and firing him from his position as incumbent of that parish. On March 20 of this year, he wrote another. This letter announced the finding of the Bishop's Court in the Jim Ferry case, and how Bishop Finlay was going to dispose of the case. The first letter received widespread attention in the secular media in early August. The second letter was an even bigger news item: television cameras and journalists jammed the meeting room at the Synod Offices, and it was a lead item on the news that night. Because of that attention, there can be few Canadians unaware that Jim Ferry was removed from his pastoral charge and his licence for St Philip's Unionville withdrawn. Without the licence he may not exercise the duties of a priest. This essentially confirmed the actions of the Bishop of last July. I must admit that I while I was bitterly disappointed, I was not surprised. Because Ferry refused to terminate his relationship with another man, he was found guilty of two of the five charges laid against him. These were "contrary to the Bishop's instructions, [Ferry's] vows on ordination and the discipline of the Church", and "contumacy [which the Oxford Dictionary defines as stubborn refusal to obey or comply] and disrespectful conduct" towards the Bishop. Ferry will continue on the clergy list of the diocese, and his situation will be reviewed annually. His situation may change if he chooses to "conform with his vows on ordination and the discipline of the Church " (that is, if he promises to be sexually inactive), or "such time as the discipline of the Church may change" (that is, when the present policies of the House of Bishops change), or if another Bishop would choose to offer him a position. The last option indicates clearly that Bishop Finlay was NOT, in fact, bound by the 1979 Guidelines of the national House of Bishops. The Court recommended that should another Bishop be prepared to accept him, Bishop Finlay would furnish Letters *Bene Decessit* (which say that a priest is in good standing) to that other bishop. If other bishops are free to choose to have Jim Ferry working as a priest in their dioceses, then so is the Bishop of Toronto. Bishop Finlay said that he feels it is time that the church review and re-asses the 1979 statement, which he describes as "the mind of the church". I would maintain that it is rather the mind of the House of Bishops, but I certainly applaud the willingness to look at it again. The Bishop announced two steps to encourage this process. First was the establishment of a special ministry in the Diocese of Toronto to promote understanding between gays and lesbians and the rest of the church through pastoral care and education. Second, he urged the national church to develop and co-ordinate creative ways by which dioceses can study and discuss human sexuality in today's church. This special ministry is designed to promote "understanding between gays, lesbians and the church through pastoral care and education". It appears to arise from the 1991 Synod motion which asked for ways of looking into the position of lesbians and gays within the diocesan family, with a view to making them feel more welcome in their church. Representation from Integrity is being sought for that group. While that is well and good, and not before time, it addresses only the issue of lesgays-in-general. It says nothing about one specific gay person, who has been demoted to second-class priesthood (still "The Reverend", but not able to do anything about it). The Bishop's decision, explicitly in the context of "a healthy family" (that is, the diocese), is essentially saying 'Well, Jim, you can be a member of the family if you pretend you're somebody else'. Masquerade is the mark of a dysfunctional family, not a healthy one. The Bishop's decision will further dis-evangelise lesgays, telling them that they are not really welcome in the Anglican Church. This issue of *Integrator* contains statements from Jim Ferry, from Bishop Finlay, and from the Primate. There is an analysis of the court decision by Valerie Edwards, Jim's lawyer; and a parallel to a secular court case of the 1920's. There is reaction from Norm Rickaby, our Co-Convener, and from one of our readers. This decision gives all justice-seeking people within the Anglican Church, and lesgays in particular, much to think about. There is anger, certainly, and that needs to be expressed. We must get past that anger too, and work on making this church a place where all people -- including Jim Ferry -- are welcome. Some of the debate will appear at General Synod this coming June. Some will appear in the next issue of *Integrator*. Your written responses are solicited. ======== [92-3-2] BISHOP FINLAY'S DECISION [This is the text of Bishop Finlay's announcement. It was read as a pastoral letter on Sunday March 22, at all services in all congregations of the diocese.] Dear Friends: The past nine months have been a time of great personal anguish for many members of our Diocese including the congregation of St Philip's Unionville, the Reverend James Ferry, other gays and lesbians, and myself. The church is the family of God, and in any healthy family there is a need for both discipline and loving care. As Bishop, I am to maintain the unity and discipline of the church and to exercise pastoral care. Last summer Mr Ferry told me of his homosexual relationship. He was aware of both the 1979 statement of the Anglican Bishops of Canada and the 1983 statement from the College of Bishops of the Diocese of Toronto regarding abstaining "from sexual acts with persons of the same sex as part of requirement for ordination". Because he indicated to me in July he intended to continue the relationship, I inhibited Mr Ferry from serving as a priest in the parish. In September, I brought charges in order to allow Mr Ferry to present his case before The Bishops Court. The Court began its proceedings February 3rd, and after hearing evidence and submissions delivered its unanimous Decision to me on February 19, 1992. The Court concluded that Mr Ferry "Was guilty of wrongdoing by refusing to refrain from continuing a homosexual relationship contrary to the Bishop's instructions, Mr Ferry's vows on Ordination and the discipline of the church;" and that the "admitted conduct of Mr Ferry constituted contumacy and disrespectful conduct towards the Bishop of the Diocese in matters appertaining to the administration of the affairs of the Diocese." I considered the submissions of both counsel to the Court, received further submissions regarding sentence by both counsel on March 10, and consulted with the College of Bishops, and others. The Bishop's Court not only rendered a Decision regarding the charges, but also made specific recommendations to me regarding the sentence. Based on these recommendations it is my decision that Mr Ferry is hereby removed from his pastoral charge and his licence for St Philip's Unionville is withdrawn. Without the licence Mr Ferry may not exercise the duties of a priest. I would, however, consider restoring Mr Ferry's licence to resume the "trust and responsibility" given to a priest if he undertakes to conform with his vows of ordination and with the discipline of the Church. If he chooses not to concur, he may continue as a priest without licence under my jurisdiction until such time as the discipline of the church might change. His situation will be reviewed annually. The choice is now Mr Ferry's and I sincerely hope he will seek to discuss the matter with me soon. Mr Ferry has received his full stipend and benefits during this entire period and I will make a pastoral grant equal to his stipend and benefits until August 1 1992. If he is unwilling to adhere to the statement of the House of Bishops then a career planning package will also be offered. As a chief pastor responsible for the care of the church family, I am aware that the Anglican Church of Canada has discipline and rules to which we are all subject. While the 1979 statement by the House of Bishops, reaffirmed in 1991, expresses the mind of the Church at the present time, a number of important issues have been raised I believe the church is being called to review and re-asses this statement and I feel this can happen within the structure of the church. Therefore, I intend to take two steps to encourage this process. First, I hope to establish a special ministry in the Diocese of Toronto to promote understanding between gays and lesbians and the rest of the church through pastoral care and education. Second, I urge the national church to develop and co-ordinate creative ways by which dioceses can study and discuss human sexuality in today's church. In conclusion, there are some who will be disappointed with my decision. I hope they will be realistic about the careful ways the church considers change. There are others who will be pleased with my decision. I trust their satisfaction will include an appreciation for the painful issues that have been raised. I have already expressed my gratitude to the members of the Bishop's Court for the time and effort they have expended, for their careful and thoughtful judgement, and for the sensitivity and fairness which they have shown throughout. I also appreciated the latitude which the court allowed in order that the broader issues could by raised by Mr Ferry and his counsel. Our duty as Christians is to seek the truth. It may be that we will gain new insights as we reflect upon the issues before us. There are people of deep faith on both sides, and I pray that as we struggle with these and other challenges that face us we will listen to one another. In my Charge to the 139th Synod of the Diocese of Toronto in September 1991, I said "what I need in this Diocese are people of good will who are willing to be bridge builders. I need people who will reach out and listen to someone on the other side, to act with care, to know how to give and take....I challenge you to build bridge in your community and within the Diocese." I need you to do this more than ever before. And now may God our Creator, Jesus Christ our Redeemer, and the Holy Spirit our Sustainer bless and preserve us ever more. Amen. +Terence Toronto ======== [92-3-3] "IN SPITE OF IT ALL, I AM A PERSON OF HOPE" The press conference statement of the Reverend James Ferry I am very disappointed by the bishop's decision today. We stand at a tremendous historical moment. The whole country is watching and waiting for an action from the church that would advance the struggle against discrimination. We have all been disappointed. I have seen the full text of the Bishop's Court's decision and recommendations. That court has, in my opinion, made it clear that the bishop is bound only by his conscience in making his decision about me. I am disturbed that he has taken a narrow legalistic approach to protect "the church's unity and discipline". What about my church's stated mission "to embody - in word and action - God's reconciling love, justice, compassion and liberation..."? Is the central gospel message served in making an outcast of Jim Ferry? I think not. Many people have told me they are waiting to see what the bishop does with me before deciding what they will do about the church. Many justice-loving Anglicans have felt personally assaulted by what has happened to me, and were hoping for a reconciling action. William Temple, a former Archbishop of Canterbury said something like: the church is the only institution that exists for those who are outside its walls. The church is not supposed to be in the business of making outcasts of people, but in the mission of drawing them into God's loving embrace within the family of Christ. At baptism, Christians promise to "strive for justice and peace among all people, and respect the dignity of every human being." When even one person is made an outcast , when the dignity of even one person is diminished, the entire community is diminished. The bishop's action is very painful to me and to many others. In spite of it all, I am a person of hope. The bishop may have abdicated the opportunity of this historical moment to take concrete inclusive action. The bishop may have made an outcast out of me, and by extension, many others. The church hierarchy may have abandoned me, but I will not abandon the church. I will remain, on the margins, as a voice crying out for justice, love, and full inclusion in the life of the church family. I believe that it will not be too many years before my hope and faith will be vindicated. St John says that everyone who loves is born of God and knows God, because God is love. Love is a tremendous gift from God when experienced by two human beings, especially in a committed relationship. I have refused to have my loving relationship reduced to "sexual acts' by the hierarchy of my church. My love is just as natural, wholesome, life-giving, God-given, and yes indeed, just as holy as anyone else's love. I have committed only one "crime": I have loved another human being deeply and intimately. Anyone who has ever been told by family, friends, or others to stop loving someone because that person is the wrong colour or class or race or gender will know how I feel today. It is a strange day when I am condemned for being in a committed loving relationship, while the world is full of prejudice, hate and violence. Some day soon, I believe, I and all persons like me will be free to love whom we choose. Some day, I pray, the religious authorities will recognise that love. God has already done so. ======== [92-3-4] THE PRIMATE RESPONDS TO ISSUES RAISED BY THE TRIAL OF JIM FERRY by the Most Rev Michael Peers, Primate of the Anglican Church of Canada I want to express my pastoral concern today for both Bishop Finlay and Fr Jim Ferry, both of whom have endured much anguish in the last few months. I believe Bishop Finlay has acted fully within his authority as a bishop in today's decision. As one who is called to be both pastor to his clergy and to the diocese, and to uphold the traditions of the church, he has shown sensitivity and care. In issuing this judgement I believe he has exercised discipline with wisdom, and at the same time pointed the way forward for healing and reconciliation. Mr Ferry has acted with courage during a difficult public ordeal. I know his willingness to appear before a public court was not simply for his own vindication, but to raise up the predicament of all gays and lesbians within the church. I hope he will not be seen simply as an offender, but as a person who has acted out of a deep commitment to the faith we share as Christians. The issues raised in and by this trial are of fundamental importance. Christians believe all persons are made in the image of God. We affirm human sexuality to be a gift of God for our well-being and wholeness. It is because we are conscious of the many distorted, unhealthy expressions of sexuality that we expect our clergy to be examples of wholeness and well-being in their own relationships. I acknowledge the convictions of people who feel homosexual love to be capable of demonstrating such wholeness. I am conscious also of the greater part of Christian tradition which has believed otherwise. Church and society are both now at a point where long held attitudes and assumptions are being challenged by new perceptions and research. It is a situation in which individuals can easily become victims of divided opinion and changing standards . These issues are not resolved today. We are struggling to understand each other and to re amine ourselves. This will be a long process, and today's events are but one step along the way. We are not given to quick fix decisions. Christians resolve fundamental issues through dialogue and listening, and as well sometimes through conflict. Understanding human sexuality will require patient listening and study by all members of the church. In this connection, I welcome Bishop Finlay's announcement of a special ministry in Toronto to promote understanding between gays and lesbians and other members of the diocese. I fully support his call to the national church in Canada to help dioceses develop creative ways to study and discuss human sexuality. We have already begun to do this in a number of ways. 1 Our General Synod in June this year will discuss these issues at an open forum on Sexual Orientation. 2 The Gays and Lesbians Working Group of the national Church has recently published resource materials called *Our Stories, Your Story* for use by local churches. 3 *A Study Guide on Human Sexuality* published in 1986 has been commended for use by the National Executive Council. 4 I have appointed a special task force to assist all bishops in further inquiry into human sexuality questions - in dialogue with homosexuals and others - and to give continuing consideration to the standards required for ordination. These efforts need to continue, and I will do all I can to strengthen them. No one among us possesses the truth fully with respect to such fundamental questions as the mystery of human love and its healthy expression. We need to respect differences but also to engage in dialogue. The public anguish endured by those who have been part of this trial is reflected privately by many people through out the church . I hope we will be able to support one another compassionately in this dialogue throughout the time ahead. The Most Rev Michael G Peers Primate ======== [92-3 5] DEAR BISHOP FINLAY... a personal open letter from Integrity/Toronto Co-convener NORM RICKABY After your decision was made public last Friday, Chris Ambidge asked me to write a reaction piece for *Integrator*. The more I thought about it, the more I realised that I wanted to write to you rather than just *about* you and so this letter (which will also appear in *Integrator*) is the result. Although I guess I expected your decision to be just what it was, I realised as soon as I heard it that I had really been hoping that you would surprise us all. My initial reaction to the news was anger. That has now been superseded and I wish that I could adequately convey to you, sir, the weight of sadness I am feeling about this latest in the series of blows that have been dealt to Jim's person and dignity. You have made much, Bishop, of your responsibility to "exercise pastoral care" to the church. Apparently you believe that you succeed in that duty by excluding from ministry a man whose godly call was affirmed by all the processes and the people who approved him for ordination. Since his ordination, he has faithfully and effectively served this Diocese and the people given into his care. You seem to believe as well that you can exclude one gay minister and not deeply injure all the other lesbians and gays in the church. The Middle Eastern and biblical model of a shepherd (pastor) is of one who *leads* the sheep. The sheep may not always want to go where they are being taken, but they find themselves led into new and rich pastures. It seems to me that, from time to time, Bishops have opportunities given them when they can either lead the church or follow behind struggling to preserve "unity" and the way things have always been. A position of leadership is both a burden and a gift. Perhaps you had, in this situation, an occasion to exercise the gift of leadership and to call the church forward to the challenge of justice for those who have always ministered and served and worshipped in the church, but without recognition or honour. I feel sad for you and for the church because you chose not to lead. Finally, since last summer you have spoken of the need for dialogue around the church's policies about and treatment of lesbigay people. You have called for "bridge-builders". You now speak of a "special ministry in the Diocese of Toronto to promote understanding between gays and lesbians and the rest of the church" and urging the national church to develop ways for study and discussion of human sexuality. I have to tell you that I, for one, have great difficulty with the implication that now that the Bishop's Court is done, we can sit around over coffee or tea and chat about what should or should not be done about "the Church and the Homosexual" while there is a living, breathing casualty before us. This past Sunday, the parish where I was worshipping held meetings after the service so people could express how they were feeling about the events of the past months. Since it is a very inclusive (and even gay-positive) parish, this was a good experience for me. However, as we talked, I couldn't help feeling that we were engaged in discussion while a body lay bleeding and unassisted on the floor in the centre of our circle. I think that there will be many others who will feel the same way, and that there will be no possibility for them to participate in your process because Jim Ferry has been made a victim. Sadly, Norman Rickaby 25 March 1992 ======== [92-3-6] COMMENTARY ON THE JUDGEMENT AND BISHOP FINLAY'S SENTENCE by Valerie Edwards The court held that much of the testimony given during the trial was not relevant, and elected to view its mandate narrowly. No reference is made in the reasons to any evidence relating to prejudice or discrimination against gay clergy. Notwithstanding the Court's narrow approach, the Reverend James Ferry was acquitted of violating his oath of canonical obedience, dishonourable and disorderly conduct, disobedience towards the bishop, and conduct unbecoming a member of the clergy. He was convicted of wrongdoing by a person appointed by the Bishop, contumacy and disrespectful conduct towards the Bishop. The Bishop's Court recommended that if Mr Ferry refused to undertake not to have a relationship with another man, he nonetheless should be retained on the clergy list until the discipline of the Church changes *or another Diocesan Bishop chooses to employ him*. Accordingly, the Bishop's Court has in essence held that the decision to employ a gay or lesbian priest who will not commit to celibacy is a decision that can be made by the individual Diocesan Bishops. In other words, the Bishops are NOT legally bound to apply the 1979 guidelines issued by the House of Bishops. Notwithstanding that Bishop Finlay is free to exercise his own conscience, and can legally employ James Ferry, he has elected to withdraw Jim Ferry's license. *This means that Jim Ferry cannot perform ANY FUNCTIONS as a priest in ANY CAPACITY*, including as a volunteer. The Bishop has also rejected Mr Ferry's offer to lead a special ministry in the Diocese for lesbians and gays. The Rev Jim Ferry has several legal options open to him. He can appeal the Bishop's Court decision to the [Ecclesiastical province of Ontario] Provincial Court of Appeal or to the [General Synod] Supreme Court of Appeal of the Anglican Church of Canada. He can also launch a complaint to the [civil] Ontario Human Rights Commission alleging that the Bishop of Toronto has violated section 4 of the *Human Rights Code*. Mr Ferry does not intend to make an immediate decision, but rather will consider all his options and decide at a later date. ======== [92-3-7] DOES THIS SOUND FAMILIAR? The Jim Ferry trial in Bishop's Court has eerie overtones of a famous trial in Tennessee in 1925. The trial of John Scopes was the focus of world-wide attention, because it was a confrontation between fundamentalist literal belief in the scriptures, and those who favoured a more scientific and liberal interpretation. Scopes was a teacher in a small town in Tennessee who taught Darwin's theory of evolution in his high school biology class. In March 1925 the Tennessee legislature had declared unlawful the teaching of any doctrine denying the divine creation of man as taught by the Bible. The judge ruled out any test of the law's constitutionality or argument on the validity of Darwin's theory, limiting the trial to the single question of whether or not John Scopes had taught evolution, which he admittedly had. The "Scopes Monkey Trial" entered popular mythology. In both cases, one individual became a lightning rod for debates between those who feel that the Genesis narratives are literally true on one hand, and those who interpret scriptures more liberally on the other. In both cases, the Court took a very narrow view of the question at issue, and while wider viewpoints were heard, they did not affect the decision reached. In both cases, the defendant was convicted. The Tennessee legislature did not repeal the legislation until 1967 -- a span of forty-two years. It is to be hoped that the House of Bishops will not take until 2021 to change the 1979 *Guidelines*. ======== [92-3-8] BISHOPS AND BOOK-BANNING Two books for lesgay Christians, one in the USA and the other in the UK, are causing a flap in episcopal circles. The two cases show how homophobic church hierarchies can be. Dr Elizabeth Stuart, a Roman Catholic laywoman in the UK, has written a book of prayers for gays and lesbians entitled *Daring to Speak Love's Name: A Celebration of Friendship*. It was accepted for publication by the Society for Promotion of Christian Knowledge, and is described by the editorial director as "an intensely moral book". It contains prayers for new relationships, for acknowledging them, and for other situations -- like coming out -- that lesgay people face on a daily basis. Dr Carey, the Archbishop of Canterbury and honorary president of the SPCK saw the manuscript. He wrote to say that he did not wish to interfere with the society's editorial freedom, but he accused the book of "running counter" to attitudes expressed by the (English) House of Bishops' 1991 statement on homosexuality. Dr Carey warned that he would have to consider resigning if such "divergences" of opinion were "frequently repeated". In the face of this threat, the SPCK decided to withdraw the book four months before publication. Stuart is considering bringing suit against the SPCK. David Jenkins, Bishop of Durham said "It is unfortunate that a moderate book attempting to contribute to the discussion should be suppressed". On the other side of the Atlantic, Harper San Francisco has published *Coming Out Within: Stages of Spiritual Awakening for Lesbians and Gay Men*. The authors are Craig O'Neill, a Roman Catholic priest, and Kathleen Ritter, a psychotherapist. The Roman Catholic bishop of Fresno says that the book condones homosexual activity. The bishop has no strings to pull with Harper San Francisco, and so the book has indeed been published. The bishop has removed O'Neill's faculty. O'Neill can now not function as a priest: precisely the same penalty that has been applied to Jim Ferry. One wonders what it is that these bishops are so afraid of, that they need to take such draconian measures against people who want, through their books, to make lesgays into healthy, self-accepting Christians. ======== [92-3-9] LETTER TO THE EDITOR [In the last issue of *Integrator* we printed a letter from SG West. We received a number of responses. Here is one of them:] I read the letter from SG West and I have one or two (maybe three) issues that I wish to address. Since when is love and acceptance "sententious nonsense"? The gospels are full of references to love and acceptance: lepers, foreigners, gentiles, women, even those accursed hairdressers of the ilk of Mary Magdalene. Our Saviour went to a bloody execution to prove that it was not "nonsense". The lives of many, many saints (Francis of Assisi comes to mind) epitomised "sententious nonsense" and were listed as memorable Christians because of it. Jim went to the bishop, not because two people complained but because he was being blackmailed. And how many of us, as lesgay people, have been blackmailed? As well, Jim's principal civil case was dropped being that the Church was going to have the issue decided in tribunal -- the right of every inhibited cleric (no matter the charge). "Loyalty" does not mean accepting oppression. Jim has stated again and again how intensely he loves the Church. Has West never heard of a loyal opposition? On to paragraph four: The Bible does not "assert the meaning of sexuality" but it does assert the meaning of love. Moreover, the meaning of "man and woman made He them" is really "male and female he made all both" as was pointed out to me recently by a Hebrew scholar of my acquaintance. And I do remember "man and man or woman and woman" in the persons of Jonathan and David; Ruth and Naomi; and (dare I put forth an opinion) the Rabbi Jesus and the Apostle John. As for "it is distinctly unacceptable to normal human beings to receive the sacraments from hands ... that have messed around with the sexual organs of people of the same sex" I get this mental image of me asking my pastor if he has ever scratched his nether regions, or has ever been a physician, or if he has ever changed his son's diapers? I also support my bishop, and as a supporter I am committed to bridge-building. If West was to have given his letter a second thought (or glance) he would have seen that he was not supporting his bishop's wishes to bridge-build. Yours in Christ, Jeffrey J Kirk ======== End of volume 92-3 of Integrator, the newsletter of Integrity/Toronto copyright 1992 Integrity/Toronto comments please to Chris Ambidge, Editor chris.ambidge@utoronto.ca OR Integrity/Toronto Box 873 Stn F Toronto ON Canada M4Y 2N9